A Tanzanian court has dismissed a long-running damages claim brought by Pula Group against billionaire Patrice Motsepe and companies associated with him, according to African Rainbow Minerals (ARM).
In a statement on Wednesday, ARM said the High Court ruled on 9 October 2026. The company welcomed the judgment and said it had always regarded Pula’s claim as unfounded and fabricated. Pula had sought $195 million (about R3.2 billion) from Motsepe, ARM, African Rainbow Capital (ARC) and ARCH Sustainable Resources.
The dispute stems from a 2019 confidentiality and non-compete agreement signed during talks over a possible investment in Pula’s graphite interests in Tanzania’s Ruangwa district. Pula alleged the agreement was breached in 2021, when ARCH invested in Australia’s Evolution Energy Minerals, whose Chilalo graphite project lies next to Pula’s ground in the Lindi region.
Key Dates in the Pula v Motsepe Dispute
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Confidentiality and non-compete agreement signed |
| 2021 | ARCH invests in Evolution Energy Minerals (Chilalo) |
| 2023 | Pula files suit in Tanzania |
| August 2025 | ARC seeks declaratory relief in Johannesburg High Court |
| 7 August 2026 | Case struck off roll for non-joinder |
| 24 August 2026 | Pula files notice of appeal |
| 9 October 2026 | High Court dismisses claim, according to ARM |
The October ruling follows an earlier setback for Pula. On 7 August, Judge Frank Mirindo struck the matter off the roll because Pula had not joined Evolution Energy Minerals and its Tanzanian subsidiary, Ngwena Tanzania, which he regarded as necessary parties. That decision did not determine whether the confidentiality obligations had been breached and awarded no damages. It did, however, confirm that Tanzania was the proper forum and rejected ARC’s attempt to rely on a South African court order to halt the case. Pula filed a notice of appeal against the whole of that decision on 24 August.
The litigation has also run in South Africa. In August 2025, ARC asked the Johannesburg High Court to declare that it was not bound by the agreement between ARM and Pula and could not be held liable for damages. ARC argued in those papers that the graphite project was worth $105 million (about R1.7 billion), well below Pula’s valuation, and that Pula Graphite no longer held the relevant exploration right by August 2023. Pula has said its $195 million figure was a valuation by Bowline Professional Services of what it stood to lose from the alleged breach.
Motsepe, ARM and ARCH initially did not defend the Tanzanian proceedings, citing improper service, which left ARC as the only defending party when Pula sought a default judgment. Motsepe has said he was not involved in ARCH’s decision to invest in Evolution.
Pula chairman Charles Stith, a former US ambassador to Tanzania, said the group had already appealed the earlier ruling and retained the option of refiling the suit, adding that the matter was far from over.
The case has unfolded as competition for graphite, a key input in lithium-ion battery anodes, has drawn growing investor interest to East Africa. Earlier rand estimates of the claim ranged from R3.15 billion to R3.4 billion, with the difference driven by movements in the exchange rate rather than any change to the dollar amount.